Australian Court OKs Cigarette Logo Ban: Should Your Country Do the Same?

by mrosen814 Posted 2012/08/16 22:00:00

Related Topics: Cancer, smoking, Health, Australia, Corporate, Government, Tobacco, News, Country, Court, Branding, Image, Images, Logo, Packs

Read More

1,106 votes
Read all 948 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	474 votes	43%
	No	632 votes	57%

Starting this December, branding and logos from cigarette companies cannot be displayed anywhere on cigarette packages in Australia. According to CBS News, "the packs will instead come in a uniformly drab shade of olive and feature graphic health warnings and images of cancer-riddled mouths, blinded eyeballs and sickly children." The government hopes the new packs will make smoking as unglamorous as possible.

CBSNEWS.COM reports:
Cigarette packs in Australia on track to be stripped of corporate logos, despite tobacco lobbying

+29

Add a comment above

Bud 2012/08/17 14:35:50

No

+24
Yet another example of government attempting to dictate how people live their lives. Government has thrown out the principle of personal responsibility by placing blame on things. Cigarettes do not kill people, misusing them does. Twenty ounce sodas do not make people any fatter than twenty ounce lattes but misusing them does. Government has also maligned the fast food industry which is a useful, lawful enterprise because some people over indulge and become obese, that is the responsibility of people who eat too much not the responsibility of fast food. Lastly, we hear "Guns kill people!" Guns do not kill people, people kill people. Left to themselves all guns can do is slowly rust away.

What we need is for government to get the hell out of our lives and leave us alone!

Bud
>> See Replies

More polls by mrosen814

DOrigin... to Red_Horse 2012/08/19 23:44:21

+1
we're talking about TAXING alcohol, not banning it.

Not that Doomsberg and MOOchelle wouldn't TRY

reply
Red_Horse to DOrigin... 2012/08/20 00:37:48 (edited)
Dan to Red_Horse 2012/08/18 01:28:08

+2
Why worry about a logo? The fact is Tobacco is regulated by the government and so is alcohol. Their advertising doesn't fall under any unconstitutional marketing infringement. That's one reason why there's the ATF.

reply
Red_Horse to Dan 2012/08/18 01:37:38 (edited)
Kozmo 2012/08/18 00:33:08 (edited)

No

They're still legal (but lacking ethics & mores) but only in adult-only areas or where impressionable folk are not over-exposed e.g. a bus stop near a school,

we've had this in Canada for some time. Quit 14 years ago, don't miss them.

reply
andrew.cheadle 2012/08/18 00:28:52

No

+1
And what is going to happen when cigarettes are no longer sold in Australia? I don't know of one company that would voluntarily sell a product indistinguishable from the competition. Pissing off a smoker is one thing, pissing off an Australian smoker (or rather all of them) has me thinking "Oh, so this is how the world will end in 2012."

reply
DOrigin... to andrew.... 2012/08/18 00:44:12

Simple. Canberra will be missing ciggy tax revenue.

Then we'll see if Washington will dare to do the same.

reply
Pam 2012/08/18 00:18:10

No

+2
This is USA so any company that has the money to advertise should be allowed to do so. I do feel that you should have to sign an agreement statement at time of purchase stating that you are aware of all the health problems that could result from smoking.

reply
InoYamanaka 2012/08/17 23:58:28

No

+2
I don't like cigarettes, but people can decide for themselves if cigarettes are bad or not.

reply
ed to InoYama... 2012/08/18 00:15:01

+2
I agree, and feel as long as they respect my breathing space ithey can do as they please.

reply
Kozmo to ed 2012/08/18 00:46:13

I've quit 14 years ago, but still allow (better) friends to have the odd one (no chain smoking, please) in my flat (door open, of course). Smoked a quarter million of the "Coughin' Nails" over my time so I don't thihk some whiffs of side-stream smoke gonna take me down anytime soon (hypocrisy). Also, I'm in a city where cars & noxious chemicals are used & I've worked with such. Living Low-Stress works wonders.

reply
Kozmo to InoYama... 2012/08/18 00:40:46 (edited)

+1
They shouldn't be displayed where children frequent e.g. a city bench near a school.
Years back, Joe Camel was more recognizable among kids than Mickey Mouse.
They should not be glamorized but a prohibition will boost the Black Market & Organized Crime so keep up the shaming. There'll always be a hard-core but they're paying substantial taxes already to compensate the Health System. Revnue-Neutral up here.

Obesity & Inactivity are a Plump Market for new funds.

reply
InoYama... to Kozmo 2012/08/18 00:45:18

+1
True. We should watch the Ads that children could see.

reply
Kozmo to InoYama... 2012/08/18 07:56:24

+1
Too many parents/caretakers use unsupervised TV, uncensored interNet & unchecked Games as baby-sitters too and then bitch about juvenile delinquency & the Nanny State

reply
MikeB to Kozmo 2012/08/18 01:29:39
Kozmo to MikeB 2012/08/18 08:00:58

I said the smokers are paying their way, go after the willingly obesifiers as they're (or they soon will be) the biggest (in more ways than one) parasite on the System

reply
ed 2012/08/17 23:47:25 (edited)

Yes

+1
A couple of years ago while visiting a family member in one of the top university hospitals , we asked for direction to the main cafeteria to get something to eat on the way we passed the Lung Cancer treatment area of the hospital , while passing through that area we encountered numerous patients walking back and forth in the area and some had bags attached to their throats, chests with plastic lines running into them carrying the disgusting looking yellow fluids some mixed with blood many carrying respirators and portable voice boxes. It turned my stomach so bad I couldn't eat I had lost my appetite, when we got to the cafeteria I couldn't help but feel somewhat sorry for those people I wondered if they had known what the future held for them if they would have continued smoking. That question was answered by at least two individuals as we walked out of the front door of that area. There they were one we had seen just 20i minutes prior, out side smoking and hanging on to his oxygen , I'V and removing his bandages and laughing about the smoke coming out of the hole in his neck.

reply
Kozmo to ed 2012/08/18 00:49:06

Even Sigmund Freud, who wrote the Book on Denial & the Pleasure Principle, couldn't quit cigars even after part of his jaw was removed for cancer. he was an Atheist, if that tells you something.

reply
MikeB to ed 2012/08/18 00:49:33
terrabytes 2012/08/17 23:39:14

No

No

reply
Stan Kapusta 2012/08/17 23:31:31

No

+1
If you don't like the product. Don't buy it. More important it's not your place to say what to do with the people who do.

reply
rudithic 2012/08/17 23:15:30

Yes

+1
I say yes, and to all those who say it can only be harmful when mis-used.

You can become terminally ill from second hand smoke, but you can't even get any of the effects from the guy next to you binging on fast-foods, soda, or alcohol. There is a fairly big difference.

reply
MikeB to rudithic 2012/08/18 00:55:13
mpurkays to MikeB 2012/08/18 02:20:30

You are not correct about this. Many non-smokers have died from lung cancer caused by second hand smoke. For example, there are countless non-smoking spouses who never smoked a cigarette, but died from lung cancer after years of being around their smoking spouse.

reply
MikeB to MikeB 2012/08/18 19:06:46 (edited)
rudithic to MikeB 2012/10/05 01:26:12

Excuse me. You are wrong. Get your "pure logic" and put it next to some stone cold facts. Deaths by second hand smoke have been discovered on many occasions. Children have died from the second from the parents they have that smoke inside. Do you think the children would be able to go to the tobacco store and buy ciggarettes to take it up themselves?

reply
janda 2012/08/17 23:10:01

Yes

they did the same thing in here , but its the same thing they keep smoking sadly my parents are one of those people :/

reply
Jaiheena Star 2012/08/17 23:09:59

No

If you don't like smoke, then don't smoke. Let people smoke if they want.

reply
ed to Jaiheen... 2012/08/17 23:57:44 (edited)

You know even though I voted yes, I agree with you but does it hurt to knoww what can happen. The funny thing is I also know people who have smoked for years and have not experiened any prroblems. I also feel that we know more now

reply
MikeB to ed 2012/08/19 18:15:37
suesman 2012/08/17 23:08:00

No

+1
We live in a world of crybabies. People always have an excuse like..."Joe Camel made me start smoking"....are you kidding me? An inadament cartoon character talked you into to doing something you already knew was wrong? Lame much?

reply
Mikado ... to suesman 2012/08/18 00:15:40

+1
the problem with that point of view is that what you are really trying to claim is that advertising does not work - when we all know quite well that it does. Advertising for products entices us daily. So advertising that attracts us DOES play a role in getting people interested in smoking, and the younger they see it, the more unaware people are of the serious health dangers involved in smoking, and not just for the smoker - every one who breathes in that smoke is being poisoned slowly.. some will be affected quickly.. others may take years..

reply
MikeB to Mikado ... 2012/08/18 00:58:25
Mikado ... to MikeB 2012/08/19 06:55:52

your statement is false, and illness does not need to be terminal to be illness. First learn how to turn off the caps-lock, then use the internet literally at your fingertips to do a bit of research please so your next post will be more informed.

reply
MikeB to Mikado ... 2012/08/19 18:27:22 (edited)
Mikado ... to MikeB 2012/08/21 00:47:23

There is no question that some people, lead by their own stupidity and childish rebellion will accidentally addict them selves to tobacco. All of the education in the world, all of the warnings, will still not stop those few people who make the conscious choice to act stupid. Education can only remove ignorance, it has little power over stupidity.

reply
Charles 2012/08/17 23:04:10

No

We should instead have a warning sign outside of Congrees... warning: votes for war for no reason at all - with a picutre of injured soliders and coffins coming home.
warning: votes for tobacco subsidies and taxes and then demonizes smokers for being addicted
Warning: helps the auto industry and the 24/7/365 of autio exhaust that everyone breathes.
Warning: Congress and Washington DC is hazzardous to our health.

reply
clh1 2012/08/17 22:55:12

No

Really ?? Alot of people have died like that!! I really Don't want it in My Face!

reply
Diddley Squat 2012/08/17 22:35:36

No

+1
It's just another paranoid step to attack smoking. It accomplished nothing but the further erosion of civil liberties and free speech.

reply
Mikado ... to Diddley... 2012/08/18 00:18:16

+1
poisoning your self MAY be argued as a civil liberty, but smoking creates second hand smoke that poisons every one who is unfortunate enough to be breathing in your vicinity or downwind of you - that is NOT a civil liberty and NOT free speech.

reply